PC496 More Opinions and Fact Checking
When Did I become Mr Thorough ?
Everything seems to take so long these days... but you have to check your facts .. and the internet means you can ...or is it a waste of time. Plus I have learned to step back and take in the big picture

"What is popular" is not the same "as what the population like"

"BBC radio 5" and other UK media who bang on about celebrities and celebrity shows like "X-Factor etc" .. really annoy me
- It's a News and Sport station - so you have to like sport to work there
- actually the vast majority of people don't pay much interest to sport, 10million viewers maximum watch TV Football, so they are catering to a minority market
- Then the presenters bang on about the 3 celebrity shows : Strictly, X-Factor and I'm a Celebrity, but these shows also get figures of 10m max out of a population of 65 million ..So the station end up catering to the people who like sport and celebrity crap ..whats that ? maybe 5% of people

..don't they understand "What is popular" is not the same "as what the population like" ..There are 65 million people in this country not just 10m

Good documentary about The English Brain Surgeon who volunteers in the Ukraine 2 weeks each year: Storyville

Climate Skeptic Allowed on BBC...to say sorry
what a bizarre spin by the BBC
- A Forum post after the BBC finally allowed a climate skeptic on TV, after he had won a FOI case against the CRU

- Firstly the clip appears in 2 places 1. The newspage item and 2. The Segment in a Regional TV programme it plugged. (begins 10 minutes in )

The news item is a travesty
Headed "Climategate: Sceptic sorry for UEA staff in scandal"..it's first message is "Mr Holland told BBC Inside Out he did not regret his enquiry, but felt sorry for the staff involved in the scandal."
.. you what ! Thats's the big story is it ? This is very strange since the last time I heard David Holland was a few weeks ago on Counterpoint Radio ABC Australia when he explained how the FOI office had just issued a judgement in his favour.
... next says "A year on from the affair, where the UEA was cleared of exaggerating data on global warming" (bad English as well as an emotive loadedmessage) and ended .."I regret we weren't as proactively transparent as we might have been, because as the Muir Russell report demonstrated conclusively we had nothing at all to hide," said Trevor Davies, pro-vice chancellor at the UEA.

- The accompanying video clip is very slightly differently edited . ..It begins with shocking glacier footage and adds extra phrases after Holland's conclusion

- OK the TV prog. We know the BBC is really onboard with the 6C (The Cult of Catastrophe is Certain to Come due to Climate Change) So I was astounded that David Holland was allowed this platform on the BBC albeit only on a regional programme in one of the most rural regions (Look East News audience is between 300,000-850,000).

...The intro text was .."In November 2009 the Climategate affair had the world questioning the science of global warming. Hackers revealed e-mails for the UEA climate research unit which seemed to suggest scientists had covered up vital data. The director of the unit went into hiding and the doors of the research unit were closed to the media. A year on David Whiteley is one of the first to be allowed inside the unit to see the work being carried out there now. And David Holland, one of the climate change doubters at the centre of the scandal, tells his story for the first time."
....(Note how they always emotive hackers (with still no evidence).. but thank the person for choosing "doubter" not the more loaded terms like skeptic or "denier"
....And no they don't let him tell his story ..They edited the footage to imply "his story" is that he is sorry people have suffered

- The TV segment was a bit bizarre, It was the normal BBC propaganda, but just stayed the legal side. Did you spot all the subliminal images amongst some emotive language : dark hacker figure, collapsing glacier, "a hacker broke in", burning oil towers, coastal erosion, huge smashing ocean, showed hockey stick graph, "so your saying sea levels won't rise dramatically", "alleged it was rigged to show..." "was it your intension to bring down ?"

- There were some other points and video : "doubters targeted the CRU with 100 FOI requests in a year", footage showed Phil Jones looking bad in MPs hearing, ... "although the CRU team has been found not to fiddled with the data it has been told to be more open" incorrect the enquiries didn't tackle that issue
... "Phil Jones has been reinstated, but the personal effect on him and other CRU members... "
... "the CRU has been investigated 3 times and the science is still ... defended" (note he didn't say cleared)

- The segment showing UEA scientist Tom Melvin collecting tree rings was strange "we can see see the effect of past climatic conditions"... but the he didn't say any conclusions (maybe they were trying to say how scientific the CRU is ) Then the CRU man said "we regret we weren't transparent as we might have been"

Despite the editing Holland was able to get some of his points in beginning "The scientists weren't prepared to engage and play with a straight bat" and finishing with "this science that costs trillions of dollars simply isn't reproduceable" and then the presenter concluded "the scientists have challenges", "this will remain a controversial subject"

I watched it live and then tried to watch again through Iplayer, but after the intro clip I always get the message "content doesn't seem to be working", downloads also stopped before it got to that point ( I hope someone has archived it, it gets wiped on 22nd of Nov) but before any conspiracy theories were confirmed it did become playable on 20th attempt.

Cherrypicking ? Thanks Pat I agree with you I imagine that there are 2 people in the production team one who commissioned it and another who wanted to make sure that "skeptics" didn't get publicity..that's why the headline was bizarrely spun. Maybe the producer edited it for the "sorry" angle, but the presenter wasn't prepared to stoop to the normal emotive language.

Actually one way to look at is :
"BBC Finally allow Climate Skeptic on TV
...... So he can say sorry for upsetting Phil Jones.."

a Stew Green Opinion

NEXT -->